All Episodes
Previous Next
May 15, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
May 15, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
They say that he was a Catalan C-A-T-A-L-A-N-C-N-Catalyn nobleman who hid his true identity, or he was the illegitimate son of a Majorcan prince, might have even been a Jew who spent his life masking his true identity.
Well, no, no, I'm sorry, folks, you interrupted staff conversation.
L.A. Times here, big story debating whether Columbus was really Italian.
I thought the debate was whether Columbus was gay.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome.
And America's anchorman is ensconced behind the golden EIB microphone, ready for broadcast excellence.
We're here at 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
We got a lot to do today.
Immigration, President has a speech tonight.
I must tell you, I have my concerns about this.
I will share those with you in due course.
Just saw this, though.
The Texas Department of Transportation has proposed a speed limit of 80 miles per hour on interstates in West Texas.
I've been waiting for people to propose we slow down to 55 again because of all the high prices and shortages or contrived shortages.
Nope, apparently going the other way.
Speed up to 80.
It's been proposed.
In West Texas interstate, Senator Clinton, you remember last week, folks?
Remember last week told you that Hillary Clinton said that work was a four-letter word to today's young generation?
And I said it is.
If you spell it out, W-O-R-K, there are four letters in the word.
Well, she has now apologized for that.
And, you know, she said, these kids today, I mean, they expect too much.
They expect start out $50,000, $75,000 a year.
She forgot that Hillary started, or what's her name, Chelsea, started at $100,000 in her first job.
So we'll have details of that.
Also, from a light-hearted stack, I don't know how they know this.
It must be the NSA spy program, but they have figured out out there that only 48 million people, or I should say 48 million people, not only, 48 million people are refusing to use their seatbelts.
Now, how do they know this without spying?
How in the world do they possibly know this without a poll?
How can they possibly know this?
They also know who you are.
Now, you know who you are if you're not buckling up, but they also know who you are.
They are young men who live in rural areas and drive pickups, the government says.
Well, can I translate that for you?
These are a bunch of hayseed hick, Bible-thumping evangelicals with guns in the back of the pickups back window and listening to this program on the radio.
They probably have a Confederate flag decal, at least one of them on the bumper.
And they're going 80 miles an hour and they're not in Texas.
And then there's 48 million of them.
All right.
Okay.
The president tonight, 8 o'clock, will make a speech on border security.
And if he's not firm about this, if this is just lip service to try to tide people over for a while, it's going to come back and boomerang.
And the reason I have these concerns, folks, is because I don't like the pre-speech leaks.
You know, they always leak the stuff that's going to be said in the State of the Union address or any other prime time speech.
And I hope I'm wrong here, but temporary National Guard until we build up the border patrol.
Let me tell you the problem with that.
The National Guard is not the problem.
The fact is that if these leaks are accurate, we're going to temporarily deploy the National Guard until we build up the Border Patrol.
Well, the problem is that Bush is the reason we haven't built up the Border Patrol.
The Congress has authorized spending for 2,000 new agents, and the administration has only asked for like 1,500 of them.
They have not.
The administration has refused to fund all the available new positions or slots for Border Patrol agents that has been authorized by Congress.
And you may have heard, you know, Dingy Harry's running around all day today saying this.
And they were all over television yesterday, Democrats saying, well, this is all well and good.
It was the president himself who hasn't, and they're right about that.
If these leaks are accurate, the Guard will not be very strong.
The original number was 10,000, I think, that were proposed being out there, not nearly that many.
They will not be on the border guarding, which is what one of the spokesmen said on Fox this morning.
Point being that if you dilute the significance of the guard on the border, then what's the point of putting them there?
See, the public is onto this now.
I don't think the public can be fooled by any of this.
And if, I mean, I'm serious, a heart attack here, folks.
If we hear tonight a bunch of lines about how these great people coming in illegally do the work that Americans won't do, that's going to offend a lot of people.
Or if we hear we can't deport 12 million illegals, nobody's urging that be done.
If it's the same old lines, it's, I don't know, folks, red flags are raised on this.
We'll just have to wait and see.
And again, this is all predicated on these pre-speech leaks.
We'll just see.
It's going to be an interesting juxtaposition because the president's going to speak at 8 o'clock, and then all the networks have special editions of their regularly scheduled shows prior to the president, and then special editions of their regularly scheduled shows after the president's speech.
So this is going to be its own drive-by media event, pre- and post-speech.
But what's interesting to me is that 24 will follow the president's speech at 9 o'clock Eastern on Fox.
So we'll hear the news leading up to this.
We'll hear the president.
We'll hear the aftermath.
And then 24 will show us how all this should be done in the context of a fictional program.
Now, there's a story in the Washington Times today with an intriguing headline: reform bill to double immigration.
The immigration reform bill the Senate takes up today would more than double the flow of legal immigration into the U.S. each year and dramatically lower the skill level of those immigrants.
The number of extended family members that U.S. citizens or legal residents can bring into this country would double.
More dramatically, the number of workers and their immediate families could increase sevenfold if there are enough U.S. employers looking for cheap foreign labor.
Another provision would grant humanitarian visas to any woman or orphaned child anywhere in the world at risk of harm because of age or sex.
These little notice provisions are part of legislation co-sponsored by Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Mel Martinez of Florida.
And there's been an in-depth analysis of this.
The Heritage Foundation has done one.
And Senator Sessions, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, has done an analysis of this, a numerical impact study.
And it's this frightening stuff.
The date of his release put a press release up as a result of his studies today.
U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican Alabama, today unveiled an impact analysis that shows the Senate immigration bill, should it become law, would permit up to 217.1 million new legal immigrants into the U.S. over the next 20 years, a number equal to 66% of the total current population of the country.
Even if the maximum levels are not reached, the increase to the U.S. population caused by Senate Bill 2611 will be at least 78.7 million in 20 years, just over 25% of the total current population.
This lower estimate assumes that the bill's escalating caps on certain visas will not increase at all over the next 20 years.
If the bill's caps are hit every year, the total number will be the higher estimate.
Sessions said that until now, most of us have focused on securing the border and deciding how to treat the illegal alien population already in the U.S.
But few, if any of us, have looked ahead to see what the long-term numerical impact of the bill would be.
My staff and I have just completed such a study, and the results are shocking.
As we begin debate today on the floor, my goal is to get these numbers before my colleagues so they can appreciate just how breathtakingly unsatisfactory this 614-page Senate bill is.
We know that this country is going to treat the illegal alien population fairly.
However, if the Senate wants to be successful in passing immigration reform, it should produce a bill that secures the borders and the workplace and establishes a common-sense, carefully thought-out, legally enforceable policy for legal immigration in the future.
I mean, these numbers are shocking.
The heritage analysis is pretty much, I think it's heritage.
Is it heritage or am I confusing this in another story?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Heritage Foundation's several Senate lawyers have studied the bill since it was proposed.
And I can get into details after the break.
But essentially, the Hegel-Martinez bill would make it considerably easier for unskilled workers to remain here permanently while keeping hurdles in place for skilled workers.
And we have talked about that on this program.
We have talked about we do control immigration, and we do a damn good job of it.
And the areas that we control are high-skilled, highly educated, technical, and professional immigrants.
We have a hard cap on that 65,000.
The bill would double this to 115,000.
But when you look at the total number of potential new immigrants, and by the way, the term legal immigrants here, in conjunction with this number of 217.1, assumes that illegals will become legal, that they won't be deployed.
This is shocking stuff here.
And there are now people trying to call attention to this after having studied and read the Hegel-Martinez bill in some detail.
There are also arguments out there that the real challenge here is to deal with illegal immigration in a strictly interior sense rather than a border sense.
David Frum on his National Review Online blog makes this point.
So we've got some audio soundbites to go with this as well.
We'll take a brief timeout.
By the way, a big day today, Allen Brothers Stakes officially joins the roster of official sponsors of the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
Their first award-winning commercial will pop up at 1253 Eastern Time, about a half hour from now.
And they've put together a little introductory pack.
I've told you about the hot dogs.
I've told you about all the other great items, but they've put together an introductory pack called a Rush Pack that gives you a sample.
And there's no way a single pack could sample everything they had, but we've put together what we think is a pretty good representative sample of the absolute superior quality from Allen Brothers.
They start today.
Their website is abstakes.com, and we welcome them to the official roster of big-time EIB sponsors.
We'll be back and continue right after this, folks.
Sit tight.
By the way, I intend to get to this later in the program.
There's a story that ran in the New York Times yesterday by Adam Nagourney called, Hey, Democrats, Why Win?
And it's talking about the House and or the Senate.
Well, now, you can sit out there and you can laugh about this.
Hey, Democrats, why win?
But this is a story about the problems they could have if they win.
Now, you have to understand what the New York Times is.
New York Times is like cheerleaders, and they give advice out there to the Democrats.
They also give us an indication of what they think is down the road.
I think this story has multiple components, but one of the components in this story is don't believe this notion that Democrats have it all locked up.
This sets the stage for explaining when they lose why that was a good strategy.
Details upcoming.
Let me give you the details that Jeff Sessions and his staff have come up with in analyzing this 614-page immigration bill.
And by the way, folks, you know, this is not easy for me to say, but it was two years ago that I sounded the warnings on this, this issue, that if the Republican Party doesn't get its arms and hands around this issue in the right way, that they are going to be more vulnerable at election time than they can possibly imagine.
And people email me, well, how did you know this, Rush?
You seem to know everything that's going to happen in politics.
It's very simple.
All it took, all it took was one trip to California for five days.
That's all it took.
I couldn't get away from the topic.
I couldn't get away from the anger, the frustration from people from all walks of life and other parts.
Go to Texas.
You do the same thing if you go to the right parts of Texas.
And it was very simple to conclude what I was hearing from people who make the country work and people who vote was not being heard by people in Washington and their frustration over that.
It wasn't hard to make this prediction.
This is just simply, you know, I'm in tune with you people.
I'm not an inside the beltway elitist pointy head snob.
You know, I'm not out of touch with you people.
I am at one with you people.
And I does it doesn't take, and I, by the way, I thought there, independently, there was a problem.
There's no question everybody knew there was a problem, but I didn't realize just how top drawer and emotional it had become with people who are directly impacted.
I mean, I'd followed Prop 187.
I knew what had happened with all that was making people mad.
And I knew that the same thing is going on in Arizona.
That was making people mad.
But until you go out and talk to these people that are directly affected by, and then you find out that it's happening in northern states as well and in the D.C. area, in states like Virginia.
I mean, it's easy to put this together.
There's a story here.
I have a whole immigration stack today, and there's a story in there that experts and government officials are opposed to a new passport program at the Canadian border.
Now, this, you know, somebody's proposing passports as a post-9-11 security thing.
It's the law.
It goes into a law.
Yeah, of course, it's a law.
It goes into effect 2008.
There's some people opposing this.
Because it can complicate transfer back and forth.
Transportation candidates too much.
So some people still don't get it, but a lot of people do.
Now, here are the numbers.
The H2C workers, H2C visas, low-skilled permanent immigration.
By creating a new H2C visa category for temporary guest workers with an annual cap of $325,000 that increases up to 20% every year the cap is met, the bill allows at least 6.5 million and up to 60.7 million new quote-unquote guest workers to come to the United States over the next 20 years.
There's nothing temporary about these workers.
Employers may file a green card application on their behalf as soon as they arrive in the U.S., or the worker may self-petition for a green card after four years of work.
Then there are the H4 family members of H2C workers by creating a new visa category, H4, for the immediate family members of the future low-skilled workers, this is H2C again, and allowing them to also receive green cards.
The bill would allow at least 7.8 million and up to 72.8 million immediate family members of low-skilled workers to come to the U.S. over the next 20 years.
Now, the high-skilled and permanent immigration numbers, this is the H-1B visa.
The Martinez, the Hegel-Martinez bill would essentially open the borders to high-skilled workers as well as low-skilled workers by increasing the annual cap from the present 65,000 up to 115,000, automatically increasing the new cap by 20% every year the cap is hit, and creating a new exemption to new cap for everyone who has an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math from any foreign university.
The number of H-1B workers coming into the U.S. would undoubtedly escalate.
The 20-year impact of this escalation could be anywhere from 1 million to 20.1 million.
H-1B workers are eligible for green cards, will be allowed to stay and work in the U.S. for as long as it takes to process the green card application.
So 1 million to 20 million is still a much smaller range than the quote-unquote illegals becoming guest workers.
They still are going to expand the permanent immigration numbers of high-skilled and highly educated professional people who have advanced degrees from any foreign university.
Now, that kind of immigration, I'll tell you who's behind that, and I can understand this.
I mean, people in the high-tech businesses, such as Silicon Valley and others, have long said there aren't enough of these people that they can get their hands on.
And it is said by critics of these Silicon Valley companies, yeah, yeah, they want these high-tech educated people, but they're foreigners who'll come in.
They'll work for less, too.
And so domestic engineers, high-tech grads, complain about this number.
So nobody ends up being happy over any of this.
Then you have to ask yourself a question.
You have to ask.
I ask myself the question.
And I don't have time to ask it before the break.
So the break will come, and I will ask you the question.
I'm sure you've been asking the same question of yourself.
Not of yourself.
You've been asking yourself about your government.
Back in just a second.
You didn't know that?
You didn't know that.
Well, what have you been doing?
Watching C-SPAN all weekend?
You got to watch something besides C-SPAN if you want to stay up.
Snurdley didn't know that they found some DNA in the alleged rape victim in Durham, North Carolina.
It was the boyfriends.
It's the boyfriends deal, but they don't want to mention his name because they don't want to drag his name through the mud.
They can drag the lacrosse players' names through the mud for weeks, but they don't want to drag the boyfriend's name through them.
He's not a target of the investigation.
I'm reminded by this because the grand jury down there just wrapped up for the day, and supposedly this third Whatever it is, lacrosse player is going to be indicted today.
And of course, a single wacko kook blogger has the entire left-wing blogosphere believing that Rove is going to be indicted today.
You ought to see the left-wing bloggers.
I mean, it is orgasm city out there, and it has been, it has been since Saturday.
At any rate, welcome back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh here.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
The question: something here just perplexes me all to hell on this immigration business.
It isn't that hard to understand.
It is really not a complicated issue.
We have laws and we have limits.
Forget this new bill.
We have laws and we have limits on this, on both legal and illegal immigration.
We're really riding herd on illegal immigrants.
We're making sure that those numbers are held to.
But when it comes to illegal, our government is toying with us.
They know full well what the majority of the American people, a clear majority, think about this, and yet they're toying with us.
And the idea of a permanent, low-paid, underclass workforce seems to me to be what is desired.
And my question is: what do they know that we don't know?
You know, I often believe that there is a lot more known than what we know about anything we hear going on in Washington or anywhere else.
We are fools if we think we've got our arms around everything going on.
We don't, and it's not possible to know.
There's some things we're not supposed to know.
Drive-by media is trying to get their hands on that stuff.
But I mean, the collective thing, you look at people like Chuck Hagel and Mel Martinez.
Now, I don't know them, but it doesn't make any common sense.
The president's appeal on this and his thinking doesn't make any common sense given the attitude of the American people and given what's happening culturally out there.
And yet, what the American people think on this, as opposed to the Do Buy Porch deal, is irrelevant.
It's as though we have to be humored.
We have here, you know, folks, this plan for citizenship for illegal aliens, if it manifests itself in the numbers that Jeff Sessions' analysis of this new bill indicates, what you're talking about, the destruction of the Republican Party in 50 years.
The idea that we're going to be able to turn these people into Republicans without a Reagan leader.
I mean, it may be possible if we had somebody willing to lead a movement nationally on conservatism that holds elective office.
We don't have that right now.
I don't know where this is coming from.
We're going to try to woo these people to be Republicans by trying to out Democrat Democrats.
The National Guard, I mean, you've got to actually send them down there and be a functioning border patrol would require a special act of Congress because right now it's against the law, posse comitatus.
You cannot do this.
So they're down there as window dressing.
They'll be down there for a few weeks.
They'll go home.
The border will be open as usual.
We keep hearing about this virtual fence.
Do we not?
They're going to construct a virtual fence.
Now, all right, well, we put a virtual fence around the Capitol building, and when we put a virtual fence around the White House, then I will believe virtual fences work.
Let them try to secure themselves that way.
Let them put a virtual fence around where they live and work.
And if it works, then fine.
I'll be a believer.
But a virtual fence, come on, what is this?
It's as though the people involved in this think that they can make us feel good with certain.
And again, I need to issue a caveat here.
My concerns here are based strictly on leaks of what this speech is going to contain tonight.
And I want to tell you right now, I hope I'm wrong in my analysis of this, and I hope these leaks are diversions and are not accurate.
I just do not understand.
So this is one of these times where I don't understand the divide that exists between the people and their representatives.
They clearly heard us, they heard you when it came to the Dubai ports deal.
They didn't listen to me.
I'm used to that.
But they heard you, and it's just as loud.
And they'll tell you they're getting more reaction from constituents on this illegal immigration problem than they ever got on the Dubai port deal.
And yet, they're ignoring it.
And so I'm just wondering, what do they know that we don't know?
Is there some power council up there that's convenes this country can't survive without a permanent underclass low-paid workforce?
Is it what big-time contributors are telling them that need and they're not going to get any money?
We know where the Democrats are.
The Democrats just look at these people that you have their new victim parade, their new civil rights movement.
The Democrats are totally understandable on this.
The Republicans are not understandable, and that's probably because the vast majority of them are not really acting as conservatives on this.
They're acting as country club blue-blood Rockefeller Republicans, which, you know, successfully we banished from existence in terms of any power in the 1980s.
But they didn't like it.
They didn't like Reagan.
They never did like Reagan.
Reagan was a hay-seat hick, just like they think you are, like they think I am.
So again, I want to be wrong about this, but it's something that is so incongruent that I'm asking myself, what do they know that we don't know?
It could be another question.
What do they think of us that we're not aware of?
They think of us.
That's easy to answer.
If they really think they can fool us on this, they think we're a bunch of idiots.
The only way they can think that is if they're not talking to us or listening to us.
They could also think that we're a bunch of rubes and we don't really know what we're talking about.
And then there might be a cadre or a segment of them.
This is just a bunch of bigotry and racism.
And this country's had a lot of it over the years.
And every generation or two, they get crazy about immigration.
I've told you what my grandfather asked me once back in the early 90s, what's big on your talk show, son?
I said, immigration is going nuts.
People can't stand it.
Illegal immigration.
He laughs at me.
Yeah, that was my debate topic in 1904 in high school.
Resolved that Southern European immigration should be stopped because they're dirty, sweaty, stinky, and lazy.
That was the premise that he debated in his high school back in 1904, 1905, whatever it was.
So it's clearly an issue that has legs and it comes and goes, manifests itself in a number of different ways over the years.
But the difference back in the early 1900s to now is that we were talking about legal immigration, hello, you know, through Ellis Island and all of that.
And there was acculturation and assimilation.
Now, what are you laughing at?
You think we were talking about illegal immigration back then?
Well, there have always been people illegally trying to sneak in here, but there's an answer.
There's a reason for that.
Who wouldn't want to come here?
Who in their right mind would not want to be here?
Problem is, we've got a bunch of soft-hearted liberals.
Well, if somebody wants to come to my country to improve themselves, I am not going to stand in their way, okay?
I am not going to be father, the racist bigots.
Take his home folks.
If some poor slob wants to come here and improve himself in my country, then fine.
We got a lot of that.
But I don't think that we had the numbers as a percentage of our workforce getting in illegally back then as we do now because we haven't gotten a handle on this when we had a chance to.
And that's just it.
There doesn't seem to be any real effort to handle the illegal aspect.
What there seems to be, more than anything else, is an effort to wave a magic wand and say, hey, you want to come in?
Fine.
We're going to have some numbers.
We're going to limit them.
But everybody gets in here, no matter how they get in, is going to be considered legal.
We're going to have these distinctions to who you are.
If you have no education and if you're deadbeat and you have to come across the border under the cover of darkness, then we're going to give you this kind of visa and you can go do that kind of work.
If you're highly educated, high-tech, professional, master's degree or beyond, well, then we're going to let you in under this other kind of visa and we're going to monitor you.
And by the way, those of you sneaking across the border under cover of darkness, you find a way to get your family in it, we're going to welcome them too.
As one folks steeped in logic, as one who tries to analyze things in a logical and non-emotional way, this one I'm having trouble with, understanding what it is that I don't know that those in Washington making this decision do know that could possibly make me not see the whole picture.
Because it seems so simple that if you're not seeing the whole picture, you don't want to.
So if you factor in what we don't know, which might be nothing, I'm just trying to make sense out of this.
Now, before we go to the break, I must tell you that I've had two or three of these emails, and I'm not going to mention any names, but you people who have sent these emails know who you are, and you've hurt my feelings.
Now, I know I try not to let this happen, but in some cases, even I drop the boundaries and the slings and arrows get in.
Let me just give you an example: this email.
Dear Rush, after hearing you rave about the Allen Brothers hot dogs, I purchased and sent my younger brother a case of them.
He's a serious hot dog aficionado.
He was thrilled.
He's an attorney who employs a secretary and another assistant.
Last Friday, he decided to conduct a blind hot dog taste test using his staff.
He went out and got some other hot dogs from Chicago, got some hot dogs from New York, and some other hot dogs from New York.
He grilled all four brands.
He labeled them A, B, C, and D, and made his employees pick the best one.
Sure enough, Allen Brothers hot dogs won.
You were right again.
You might be like, why does this hurt my feelings?
There's no need for a taste test, folks.
Once I tell you, it's over.
David Frummett National Review Online, among many who are hitting the administration hard today on the upcoming speech tonight at his blog at National Review on Align, when the Bush administration fitfully attempts to enforce the immigration laws, it looks for measures that meet four criteria, he says.
Number one, they must be spectacular.
Number two, they must be expensive.
Number three, must be unsustainable.
And number four, ineffective.
The proposal to deploy the National Guard to the border meets all three.
This plan won't work.
It's not seriously meant to work.
It's supposed to look dramatic and buy the president some respite from negative polls, and then it's supposed to fail, strengthening the administration's case for its truly preferred approach, amnesty plus guest workers.
If there's one truth about immigration that should have been learned since the last amnesty, it is this.
The immigration laws cannot be enforced at the border.
They have to be enforced in the interior space of the country, create an accessible, reliable system for employers to confirm the legal status of their employees, require employers to use it, check compliance, and punish cheaters.
That's what you have to do to enforce the law.
If you don't do that, you can send the National Guard to occupy Mexico City or dig a moat along the Rio Grande and fill it with man-eating alligators, and it won't matter.
Your enforcement will fail.
I don't agree that you can't do border security.
But I understand what he's saying about this business of you have to enforce the law in the interior.
But I disagree with that.
I think you can shore up the border and make things happen.
But this gets to the same question I had.
There's no desire for this to really work.
And, you know, folks, this is the thing that we have to come to grips with.
If you look at the Hegel, whatever it is, Hegel-Martinez bill, there isn't a serious desire to fix this problem, and there hasn't been for I don't know how long up there on Capitol Hill.
And I ask myself, is it really nothing more than the fact that these people want votes and that they're afraid to offend members of groups who might be affected by tougher enforcement?
And you can conclude, yeah, because sometimes when you start looking for all the complicated answers, you get crazy.
Sometimes the simplest explanation is actually what it is.
But there's no question there's fear here.
And it's that fear that we don't understand because it's not the fear of us.
It's not the fear of citizens going to the polls and taking out their frustrations on incumbents.
No, that fear doesn't seem to bother them.
It's the fear of what's going to happen to these illegals as they come in and become voters at some point, and who are they going to take it out on?
And also, there may be fear of various contributors.
Who knows?
But it obviously is fear-based.
Let me grab a quick call here before we have to take a break.
Greg in Louisville, Kentucky.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Well, I think you touched on it when you talked about your grandfather.
I just finished rereading Milton and Rose Friedman's wonderful book, Free to Choose.
I'm sure you've probably read that or other things by him.
But this country did so much better when we had open immigration.
We didn't have a welfare state supporting immigrants, and that should be cut off now.
But back in the 1800s, when my ancestors came over, when the Limbaughs maybe came over, when Andrew Carnegie and Alexander Graham Bell came over, we did great when we had open borders, freedom, a little limited government.
And it's really unfortunate to me when we have people in the Republican Party that they want to have an INS agent behind every bush at every desk and checking on employers.
And these people want to come over here and work hard.
Why don't we let them do it?
Wait a minute now.
Wait.
Wait a second.
Wait a second.
I can't believe that Milton Friedman, Milton Friedman and his wife Rose, or would stand up today and say that they're all for illegal immigration as it's currently happening because it has led to the creation of a welfare state because they end up being the targets of liberal Democrats as new victims.
And so it's impossible to have limited government or even to begin on that road once you stand by the notion that we can't stop this and we've got to have them legal guest workers and so forth.
Plus they're so poor, they're going to need some court of social service.
This is roiling the society.
Let's ban it.
Let's ban public assistance immigrants, but have them work.
If they want to come here and work, don't get on welfare.
What's wrong with that?
That's a conservative value.
It's not the way to solve the problem.
The way to solve the problem is stop giving them jobs.
That's what's attracting them.
We're not even talking about immigration here, Greg.
That's the thing people need to remember.
What is currently happening now is not immigration.
We don't have these people coming in trying to become Americans.
I mean, some of them do.
There's no question.
But the vast majority of them are not.
And by the way, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, courts have ruled.
This is what Prop 187 was about.
They've already ruled that it's unconstitutional to ban welfare for illegal immigrants.
California tried to do it.
It's called Prop 187.
Federal judge, you can't do that.
Why, that's unconstitutional.
And so that just ratcheted up the emotion even more.
All right.
Greg, I appreciate the call.
Got a run coming up.
We're honored to welcome them.
Our first ever real commercial here for Allen Brothers Steaks.
And they're just, folks, you don't need to go do side-by-side taste tests.
It's an insult to me if you tell me you're going to go do that.
You don't need to do it.
Yeah, we'll get to some audio soundbites on this.
The drive-by meeting when they're dealing with the president's speech tonight is kind of comical, too.
Bob Sheeper asking if the National Guard's going to be firing on illegal immigrants and killing them.
Folks, I say this on occasion now and then.
Just don't doubt me.
She first said, I'll get the soundbite.
The National Guard can be firing on illegal immigrants.
It conjures up that kind of a picture.
▲
Export Selection